Re: And Yet @JDX

You are wrong. Catholicism allows contraception, but only natural (Ogino-Knaus). Artificial is bad because it degrades the naturalness of the act. It is not true that it "preaches that any sexual intercourse that isn't for procreation is evil, a sin," for it allows and even recommends sex between partners that are sterile because of condition, pregnancy or age. It preaches only against artificial separation of sex from its natural function, which is an integral part of it. For Catholics sex is not sinful, but sacred; their strict rules are not about its condemnation, but about its protection from profanation.

Re: Lies...damn lies...and statistics.

You did a fine job, but your final conclusion is wrong. EVs need time to develop, as well as their supporting infrastructure, so it makes sense to start deploying them even when they make no much ecological or economic sense. Only when you have proved and working technology and consumer acceptance with predictable growth rate you can start investing into recharging and power-generating infrastructure, first of all zero-emission nukes (which make an excellent fit), that could not be constructed overnight. Your analysis is reasoned, but first, tentative generation of EVs serves more to test the market than to move people around.

Nomen est omen, shams is plural of sham, first in the row. And I can't see the point in using this stupid thermodynamic cycle while there is a PV-glut, and cloudless & sunny Arabia is an ideal place for their deployment. It's probably nothing more than lip service to Greens and an attempt to undermine development of the only serious competition to fossils -- i.e. nuclear energy.

Re: Oops!

Re: Thorium

We have millions of years of thorium available. The common fallacy is to count only proven reserves, but these reserves are based on current, much depressed prices, as thorium is next to worthless. However, a 1GW plant, using a sigle ton of thorium per year could tolerate almost any price of fuel. This rises reserves of thorium to billions of tons.

Centuries, not decades

Wrong. The reactor waste is just a part of the story. For each ton of fuel, about 20 tons of depleted uranium is produced, that could be used in breeders, including liquid-salt reactors. These tailings amount to millions of tons, enough to last for centuries. So there would be no need to mine a single ton of uranium before the fusion inevitably takes over.

Re: Who Is Doing The Street Cleaning

Yes, but radiations in Dartmoor and Cornwall are green (natural) and so balming and politically correct. Likewise, if you fell from you roof fixing solar panels, the snow-white (clean) angels will carry you straight to Paradise. If you die hit by alpha-particle from a passing spent-fuel container, then polluted (a lot of sulfur dioxide!) Hell is your fare. Yes, all radiations are equal, but some radiations are more equal than other.

Re: Leave him alone

Helium vs. Hydrogen

Why not use hydrogen instead? It is even more efficient coolant than helium, and is routinelly used for cooling of big alternators. Just don't tell me about inflamability, with a Bic lighter in your pocket and Li battery in your notebook.

Solution to this problem is simple -- go nuclear. Not only to reduce CO2 level, but even more because of cheap desalination. Desertification and irrigation are too often overlooked as mechanisms for rising of sea levels, but the math is simple: you lower the water table and levels of inner seas (Aral, Caspian), you rise the level of the world ocean.

Each square meter of land holds about 50t of underground water, meaning that turning of a million of km2 of deserts into pastureland drops the sea level by about 15cm.

At about 1m of irrigation, it's 1e12 tonnes p.a. for 50y. Advanced reverse osmosis uses only about 1.5 kWh or some 5 MJ per tonne of water. So it's 5e18 J p.a. or about 150 GW. It's huge, but feasible, and the value of reclaimed land is in $T range, while 150 GWe of nuke power cost less than $500B.

These calculations are very, ve-ery approximate of course, but they at least prove that the scheme makes at least order-of-magnitude sense. The process of inundation could be not only stopped but reversed.

Re: Optional @John 104

praos

As usually, what is dropped out is the paradigm shift. The expected result of this robotization is not lazy driver but a robot taxi. With cars tailored to your momentary needs (single seaters, familly sedans, city cars, roadsters, sermis) coming on demand, at a bargain price, why own a car at all? And then, for cars operating 24/7, the cost of electron-ware is not so important. It goes without saying that in this scheme of things EVs will be preffered.

praos

Flowing of glass is a myth. Glass crystallizes, by only at high temps, if not of special composition (enamels). Natural glasses (obsidian, tectites) last for ages. Of all glasses the fused quartz is the most stable, due to its high softening point; in fact the main role of all other components in glass is to depress its softening point to workable temperatures. Don't worry, quartz if for ever.

praos

Really, why not hydrogen? First thing that crossed my mind. At room temp it's perfectly inert, have 1/2 of He density and is even better conductor of heat. Hydrogen was routinely used as coolant for large electric generators for decades, there is rich experience to tap. Helium is probably selected only for snobbish reasons or because of some stupid regulation. The quantities are miniscule, I can't see any hazard in using it..